Hey, just a quick heads up, I kinda ran out of space for my Contacts arguments, so I might elaborate on that in my next speech. Also sorry for the confusion about the topic.
Well, without giving to much information away, adapting to global warming could be relocating to inner land, or perhaps creating new farms in suitable climates.
Trent, thank you for this debate. It was quite short alas but still a good and fun one. I do hope to be seeing you soon.
Supa, thank you for your vote. This was quite a short debate so there wasn't really much space to write or details to judge, but thank you for your insight anyway.
Oh, and I would also like to thank you for your insightful review/vote. It really helped me think about what I have stated and I will certainly keep that in mind for the future.
Question however:
I though conduct was the way you introduce your opponent. Thanking them for the time and effort at the beginning and end of a debate certainly counts, does it not?
Paul, I just wanted to respond to your last point.
"well look at it this way no one is doing anythng to stop it we may as well get used to the changes because they are now unaviodable"
The motion is to assume that people are going to do something. The motion is giving us a choice, whether we should avert, or adjust to climate change. It is not referring to the current state of people's wishes. And yet if it were, you have not provided any evidence backing this up...
Well then, if what you're saying is true, then God be with me. I've never heard a Flat Earther's opinion on Nasa before. Should be interesting if not a little stupid...
People don't believe in Bigfoot because of Scientific evidence, it's because of other lesser concrete reasons with no ties to real science. I would be surprised if someone even accepted this debate...
Hmm... Franklin, it does seem to me that you've wasted your time on this one. Very sorry to hear. But you did in fact provide an interesting read. Well done!
Hmm... I don't really think that this would/could be a good debate, let alone a debate itself. Bigfoot is very easy to disprove (probably because it's impossible to prove), and I don't think that anyone would/could put up a fair and good fight.
Links for my second round:
https://www.howtogeek.com/169847/how-attackers-actually-hack-accounts-online-and-how-to-protect-yourself/
https://whatismyipaddress.com/hacking-basics
https://www.explainthatstuff.com/fingerprintscanners.html
http://theconversation.com/fingerprinting-to-solve-crimes-not-as-robust-as-you-think-85534
https://www.biometricsinstitute.org/what-is-biometrics/types-of-biometrics/
https://science.howstuffworks.com/biometrics2.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gait_(human)
https://www.biometricsinstitute.org/what-is-biometrics/standards/
https://www.sanitysolutions.com/understanding-the-cost-of-a-data-security-hack/
Here's the clip I was referring to in my speech (skip to 1:55):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcTK6uPPiAo
I thought this was off-topic in a debate so that's why I'm posting it here.
Links:
https://www.informationweek.com/strategic-cio/security-and-risk-strategy/are-biometrics-good-or-bad-for-digital-security-/a/d-id/1331991
https://opusresearch.net/wordpress/2018/04/27/biometrics-the-good-the-bad-and-the-reality/
https://www.onelogin.com/learn/biometric-authentication
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics
https://cybersecurityventures.com/hackerpocalypse-cybercrime-report-2016/
https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/5-million-google-passwords-leaked-a-7299
What's the BoP here?
Good debate man. I really enjoyed it. Hope to see you soon!
Hey, just a quick heads up, I kinda ran out of space for my Contacts arguments, so I might elaborate on that in my next speech. Also sorry for the confusion about the topic.
Good luck!
Lions are endangered in America...
Just wanted to point that out for you xD
Ah, gotcha.
So I just have to prove the resolution is true, and that would be my BoP
Oromagi just has to prove that the resolution isn't true, or disprove all my points, and that would be his BoP
So do I have to say in my speech what my BoP is?
Interesting, although I do believe that Con does have a chance here...
Ah, good question. I never thought of that.
In this case, the Contender will argue that space exploration allocates too much money.
Oh thanks man. Hope to be debating with you soon!
Good debate Trent. Well done!
Oh thanks man, I appreciated it.
Quick question though, are you fortifying these rounds on purpose? Or do you just keep forgetting?
I don't even know what a Burden of Proof is, nor how to use one xD
I'm scared. I'm debating against #1...
👍👍👍
I would recommend posting this complaint on the form...
Ah, okay. That makes much more sense now. Thank you.
Well, without giving to much information away, adapting to global warming could be relocating to inner land, or perhaps creating new farms in suitable climates.
True words
Yes, we should definitely do both, but for the sake of this debate, you can only chose one option.
I would recommend taking a look at this article...
https://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/0-999-does-not-equal-1/
So does that mean that this debate is all merely based on opinion?
I'm not a Math guy.
But still, I fell like something that simple should have a definite proven answer in Math, unless this is one of those pesky unsolved Math mysteries?
But isn't that a Mathematical fact?
Oh yeah no problem man. As long as you're following up, that's okay!
Man, I don't think I can argue with that!
Ha, lol!
bmd, lol. I wanted too see how a one sentence debate would play out.
Paul, glad you like him. Just curious, if not Yang, then who else would win?
Thanks for your vote Trent! You really did make it insightful.
And thank you Phoenix for this wonderful debate.
True
Hmm... that is a good point. My bad then. I have now changed my metaphor. Thank you for fact checking me.
I'm not saying there were any active castles at the time, but I don't know about you but ...
https://www.ranker.com/list/firearms-in-1791/rachel-souerbry
... a castle doesn't seem so bad.
I'm a little confused. Organic as a living breathing organism? Or organic as a metaphor?
Got it. Thanks man.
Trent, thank you for this debate. It was quite short alas but still a good and fun one. I do hope to be seeing you soon.
Supa, thank you for your vote. This was quite a short debate so there wasn't really much space to write or details to judge, but thank you for your insight anyway.
Oh, and I would also like to thank you for your insightful review/vote. It really helped me think about what I have stated and I will certainly keep that in mind for the future.
Question however:
I though conduct was the way you introduce your opponent. Thanking them for the time and effort at the beginning and end of a debate certainly counts, does it not?
Hmm... intriguing inquiry. Would you be open for a debate with me on this exact issue about global warming? DM me if you're interested...
Paul, I just wanted to respond to your last point.
"well look at it this way no one is doing anythng to stop it we may as well get used to the changes because they are now unaviodable"
The motion is to assume that people are going to do something. The motion is giving us a choice, whether we should avert, or adjust to climate change. It is not referring to the current state of people's wishes. And yet if it were, you have not provided any evidence backing this up...
Hmm... I was thinking about defining that in the debate, but I guess it wouldn't hurt now.
I don't want to give an exact amount, but around 850 - 1000 per month should be fine. I'm basing this off Andrew Yang's idea.
Ah okay. Gothca. I'll try not to vote until I have debated 2 times. Thanks for clearing that up for me!
Oh yeah, sorry I didn't clarify on that. Climate change more specifically as global warming.
Ah, very well then, this debate should then be quite... alluring.
Yeah, I noticed that too lol
He is? You know him?
Well then, if what you're saying is true, then God be with me. I've never heard a Flat Earther's opinion on Nasa before. Should be interesting if not a little stupid...
People don't believe in Bigfoot because of Scientific evidence, it's because of other lesser concrete reasons with no ties to real science. I would be surprised if someone even accepted this debate...
Hmm... Franklin, it does seem to me that you've wasted your time on this one. Very sorry to hear. But you did in fact provide an interesting read. Well done!
Hmm... I don't really think that this would/could be a good debate, let alone a debate itself. Bigfoot is very easy to disprove (probably because it's impossible to prove), and I don't think that anyone would/could put up a fair and good fight.